Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hoodoo Gurus discography/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC).

Hoodoo Gurus discography

 * Co-Nominator(s): shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list, as we believe that whilst it was previously nominated in May 2008 we have made significant improvements over the last month that address all the previous identified issues and satisfactorily deal with all the FL criteria. We have both been involved in a number of other successful FLC so we understand what is necessary to met these standards. Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Cartoon network freak

With my issues being resolved, I am now willing support to this FLC. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo
 * I realize that this discography follows the same format as many other discography FLs, as set out in a stale proposed WP:DISCOGSTYLE guide. However, I wonder if this is the best way to present the information.  A discography is a "descriptive catalog of musical recordings" (Oxford American Dictionary). Many WP discographies appear to be "lists of chart and sales data".  I own several published discographies and none follow this format or place so much emphasis on sales and charts.  In the "Studio albums" table, the album title and details are squeezed into two narrow columns, making it difficult to read.  About 2/3 of the table is devoted to charts and sales.  Are all of the country columns important?  The UK Indie column has only one entry, CAN two, SWE four, etc. Similarly, the "Singles" table includes columns for CAN and NZ (1 entry each), UK Indie and US Mod Rock (2 entries each). So, there are four columns for six entries or about 1/4 of the space.  There is no descriptive information for singles: releases, labels, B-sides, etc.  Many indie bands release songs on B-sides that are not available elsewhere and may be noteworthy, contrary to WP:DISCOGSTYLE.  Is there a way to present the information that has a more balanced look?  In my view, current formats lack "visual appeal", one of the style criterion. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe most of your commentary is more directly applicable for the Discographies/style talkpage, perhaps you should voice your concerns there?
 * As for Hoodoo Gurus discography: the tables may have up to ten columns of charting for regions (countries) or component charts therein. There is not much charting information, in some of those columns, for this group; however this is still notable enough to be included in a featured list of their works.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my concerns are more appropriate for the DISCOSTYLE talk page. I will take them up there. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.